Oliver v. Postel, 30 N.Y.2d 171 (1972)
A court order closing a courtroom to the press as a punitive measure for publishing information deemed unfavorable constitutes an unconstitutional act of censorship, violating the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press.
Summary
This case addresses the conflict between freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. Following news articles about a defendant’s criminal record, the trial judge closed the courtroom to the press, deeming their reporting ‘contumacious.’ The New York Court of Appeals held that this closure was an unconstitutional act of censorship, violating the First Amendment. While acknowledging the need to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial, the court emphasized that closing the courtroom was not a permissible remedy in this case because the prejudicial information originated outside the courtroom, and the judge had already determined that the jury was not exposed to the prejudicial articles. The Court found the closure to be a form of punishment against the press and an impermissible restriction on their ability to report on judicial proceedings. The court ultimately dismissed the petition as moot since the underlying trial had concluded.
Facts
Carmine Pérsico was on trial for conspiracy and extortion. Prior to any evidence being presented, The New York Times and The Daily News published articles detailing Pérsico’s criminal history and alleged underworld connections. Pérsico’s counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing the articles created a prejudicial atmosphere. The trial judge, Justice Postel, denied the motion after polling the jury and finding that none of them had read or seen the articles. However, Justice Postel warned the media against reporting anything other than what transpired in the courtroom, threatening contempt. Subsequently, articles critical of the judge’s actions and reiterating Pérsico’s background were published. The judge, viewing this as defiance, closed the courtroom to the press and public for the remainder of the trial.
Procedural History
Five newspapermen filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking to reopen the courtroom. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition based on Matter of United Press Assns. v. Valente. The newspapermen appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. Pérsico’s trial concluded with an acquittal during the pendency of the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a trial judge’s order closing the courtroom to the press, as a response to what the judge deemed to be prejudicial news coverage, constitutes an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, even when the trial has concluded, rendering the specific order moot.
Holding
No, because the trial judge’s order was an unwarranted effort to punish and censor the press, and the fact that it constituted a novel form of censorship cannot insulate or shield it from constitutional attack. The court modified the order, dismissing the petition solely because the issue was moot due to the trial’s conclusion.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the closure order was a direct response to the news media’s publications and was intended as a punishment for their reporting, thus infringing on their First Amendment rights. The court drew a parallel to contempt powers, noting that punishment for out-of-court statements is only permissible when those statements pose a “clear and present danger” or “a serious and imminent threat” to the administration of justice, citing Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941), and Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947). The court found no evidence that the news articles posed such a threat, especially since the judge had already determined that the jurors had not been exposed to them. The Court stated,